In Britain, the Guardian reports that Tony Blair is facing the opening of floodgates to a catastrophic rebellion in his own ranks, as Clare Short said she would quit the cabinet if there was no second UN resolution supporting war in Iraq. In comments which were frank even by her standards, she said she feared the prime minister was being "extraordinarily reckless" with the future of the government. See Short spearheads rebellion with threat to quit over war at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5570-605770,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5570-605770,00.html Excerpts of an interview with her are at http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,911126,00.html

This follows on from the reports last week that the British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, may resign because his advice to the British government is being ignored.

Tony Blair's political dilemmas over a possible military attack on Iraq increased today, with reports that the government's attorney general may resign if Britain goes to war without clear authorisation from the United Nations. Legal opinion varies on the basis for war under resolution 1441, but yesterday Cherie Booth's own legal chambers, Matrix, advised there was no authority for war without an unambiguous fresh resolution. Now it has emerged that there are fears within the government's legal service about the exact provisions of international law for a US-UK attack.

And the Independent on Sunday (9 March) published an editorial which could not have sent a clearer message to Tony Blair ...

You do not have the evidence. You do not have UN approval. You do not have your country's support. You do not have your party's support. You do not have the legal right. You do not have the moral right. You must not drag Britain into Bush's unjust and unnecessary war. Independent on Sunday, for full text see http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=385308

Meanwhile, across the Tasman, John Howard returned to Australia to strong criticism from families of people killed in the Bali bombing because of his comments linking the Bali bombing with the case for war on Iraq - see Unrepentant PM won't budge´ at
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/10/1047144923204.html

The fraudulence of the US government´s self-declared role as upholders of peace, democracy and international law has been further exposed by new reports of the torture of Afghani prisoners - see for example Duncan Campbell´s article Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base - 'Blunt force injuries' cited in murder ruling´ at http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,909164,00.html

As well as the the appalling human cost of this war on the people of Iraq (and perhaps the region if it escalates), the threat to international peace and security, and the damage to future prospects of resolving conflict peacefully, the priorities of the warmongering governments are evident through even a cursory look at the figures involved.

With a war against Iraq perhaps days away, the world's richest governments have given the United Nations barely a quarter of the funds its agencies have asked for to deal with the expected humanitarian catastrophe. "We made an updated appeal for $120m (£75m) in February and have so far received $30m (£18.75m)," Elizabeth Byrs, the Geneva spokesperson for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Activities (Unocha), said yesterday.  See West's failure to donate humanitarian aid threatens catastrophe for millions´ at http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,910816,00.html

Aside from the fact that the expected humanitarian catastrophe´ could so easily be avoided; figures such as those above are a drop in the bucket compared with just the US government´s military expenditure -

The Bush administration's war on terrorism and its proposed military intervention in Iraq have sparked the steepest increases in military and security spending in two decades:

Since September 11, 2001, the president has requested, and Congress has approved, over $110 billion in increases in military spending and military aid. The military budget has jumped from $329 billion in FY 2001 to over $380 billion in FY 2003 (see Table I, below). In addition to these increases in regular appropriations, the Pentagon has received over $30 billion in emergency and supplemental funding, and Congress has authorised roughly $3 billion in new military and security aid for US allies in the war on terrorism.

Spending on homeland security has doubled, from $18 billion to $38 billion per year, and a new Department of Homeland Security has been created.

The cost of the war in Afghanistan is at $15 to $20 billion so far. Independent estimates of the costs of a potential war with Iraq put the price tag at $100 billion or more. (War Without End? The Costs of the New Military Buildup´, William Hartung, February 2003. All figures are in US$. )

Recent articles on the Pentagon´s shock and awe´ war plans talk of 3,000 Tomahawk missiles in 48 hours for Baghdad alone; Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's birthplace and power base, to be razed; six kilos of ordnance for every Iraqi. See for example Allied bombs threaten a new generation of children with trauma, disease and death´ at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=385533

In 2001, the unit cost of each Tomahawk cruise missile was US$2.5 million ...

Strange how there´s no limit on spending for maiming, killing and destruction; and an apparent inability to link that, and the lack of political will to spend anything even remotely approaching these sums on real peace and security, with the root causes of terrorism´.

Links to more articles and statements are available on the Stop killing the people´ of Iraq web page http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/iraqa.htm which is currently being updated every Monday and Thursday.